Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
I wrote: [...] Only if we let it. We're not animals. We're human. We can control ourselves. Just because it rarely happens doesn't mean it can't happen. It can happen, of course, it's just that it's different. Such a situation most likely deteriorates into soem are more equal than others, as known from Aldous Huxley. ^ Actually George Orwell. Sorry. But both are phantastic :-) I do think it possible, mind you, but I also think it would pose some problems that otherwise would never arise. But then, with the right attitude anything is possible. [...]
Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
Eric Gillespie, Jr. wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Jernej Zajc wrote: Being a Caldera newbie I find Debian idea so interesting that I'll probably switch. Point is, there is absolutely no commercial interests driving the development into one direction or the other. Developers have total control over what and how is going to be implemented. It's what's made Linux (and other high-end UNIX systems, such as Solaris, HP-UX) what they are - versatile OSs that are configurable to the maximum extent. Windoze, on the other hand, has been developed according to wishes, not needs, of hobbie users that favour clicking icons and stuff like that. I like it too, but found that my data is indefinitely more important and want to use it in the future so Linux is my best bet. Some of us are tired of relying on ever-changing APIs that are being developed according to momental needs (=which rival do we want to wipe out today, Balmer?) The less organization you have the more development will serve real needs; developers that code in their spare time usually know what they're doing and what is needed, and are not directed by boss that puts generating revenue as priority no. 1. Do you think it will ever be possible that in a corporation the work will not be driven by revenue? That shareholders will back off and leave developers total control over their work? I think not. Then you must not be paying attention. As I have said in nearly every message, this would not be a public corporation. The only shareholders would be the same people who control Debian today. The only change is that they will be paid and therefore will not need other jobs. Yes, I found that from later messages (I have a slight delay getting mesgs from this list). The basis would stay the same, and from selling CDs developers could be paid. But... [scroll down] As for two kinds of developers, paid and unpaid ones, don't you think there can arise some tensions between the groups? Money changes much things. Only if we let it. We're not animals. We're human. We can control ourselves. Just because it rarely happens doesn't mean it can't happen. It can happen, of course, it's just that it's different. Such a situation most likely deteriorates into soem are more equal than others, as known from Aldous Huxley. I do think it possible, mind you, but I also think it would pose some problems that otherwise would never arise. But then, with the right attitude anything is possible. Debian is the only viable non-commercial Linux distribution nowadays. It's the only major Linux distribution of which development is propelled by absolutely no commercial interest. Many many people want it to stay this way. After all, it's the Linux way. Jernej None of this would change. As for your comment about the Linux way, I don't buy it. Over the course of the last year Linux has become *heavily* commercialized. I am dead against that. What I propose is the exact opposite, securing the developers and users as the sole controlling force behind Debian. Has it? Was development of 2.2.0pre commercially driven? I didn't know that. Distros are being commercialized, that I do see. But not kernel development, or have I missed something? Jernej
Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
You're proposing this for Red Hat. That's fine, I'm proposing a similar model for Debian. Maybe the membership idea is a good idea, maybe it isn't. I can see some advantages, but I can also see some drawbacks. The key is to get these ideas out on the table. We'll never know until we try. As for what you said about two classes of developers, that doesn't make any sense. If developers are willing to work for free now, why wouldn't they be able to work for free if some of the core group are getting paid? I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it. Sure, it's a good idea to talk about different ideas. As for the paid/un-paid developers issue... I know of organizations which have had this structure. Where I live, the ambulance association used to have half paid, half volunteer, ambulance workers. This worked okay for a while, but eventually they had to abandon the structure, getting rid of the volunteer drivers. Unfortunately problems arose between the two groups. The paid people became frustrated with the volunteers because the latter weren't nearly as skilled --- the paid people obviously spent much more time at it, and had to be good otherwise they'd lose their job. In turn the volunteers became frustrated with the paid people. As volunteers they believed they should have some rights and say in how things were run. The paid people believed they should say how things were run, as they were more skilled and spent more time doing it. As you can see, this is an environment ripe for arguments and disputes. There would be a real danger that similar problems would occur if Debian followed this model. I'm not saying it's impossible to have both paid staff and volunteers, but if you do, you need to be very careful how you do it. I suggest the best way would be to have a separate Debian User Association with paid staff, as I have outlined in a recent email. Mark. _/\___/~~\ /~~\_/~~\__/~~\__Mark_Phillips /~~\_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] /~~\HE___/~~\__/~~\APTAIN_ /~~\__/~~\ __ They told me I was gullible ... and I believed them!
Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
Eric Gillespie, Jr. wrote: I hope no one gets angry at me for reviving this thread, but I'm just now reading it and I think this could be an important issue. Christian Lavoie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: My point is that this company would one day tries ot improve it's revenues and influence the Debian distribution to fits its needs. Look at the recent discussions about whether to ship Slink as i386 only, or to wait until m68k and others are ready. If Debian had been commercially distributed by a company, the choice wouldn't be taken on a 'How can this help the Debian dists and end-users' basis, but on a 'How can we get the most bucks' basis. You're thinking in traditional terms. Someone decides these issues now, right? Those exact same people would be in charge of this corporation. They would not be interested in the bottom line, but in what's best for Debian. The word corporation scares a lot of people because of what it's come to represent. But how a corporation is run is decided internally. Just because there aren't any democratic corporations doesn't mean we can't start one. This new democratic Debian corporation could sell shrink-wrapped Debian CDs right next to Red Hat CDs, hopefully cheaper. Combined with Debian's advantages over Red Hat and word-of-mouth, Debian could possibly eclipse Red Hat. Even if it doesn't become the best-selling distro, it could still sell enough to give the developer's jobs. I'm not sure if this would be considered a for-profit corporation or not. No one's really raking in any profit, most of the money is going back into Debian and paying for the packaging and such, but some people are getting paid, so I'm not sure. I can see only two changes in Debian due to this corporation. Development would (presumably) go faster because the developers are getting paid, and Debian would become more well-known. I also liked the idea that someone suggested earlier, that people could pay dues into this corporation and get a vote. A democratic corporation indeed. This may sound radical, but we'll never know if it will work unless we try, will we? /--\ | pretzelgod | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | (Eric Gillespie, Jr.) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |---*| | That's the problem with going from a soldier to a | | politician: you actually have to sit down and listen to | | people who six months ago you would've just shot. | | --President John Sheridan, Babylon 5| \--/ You see, there's something of an answer to your proposal in your very signature :-) Being a Caldera newbie I find Debian idea so interesting that I'll probably switch. Point is, there is absolutely no commercial interests driving the development into one direction or the other. Developers have total control over what and how is going to be implemented. It's what's made Linux (and other high-end UNIX systems, such as Solaris, HP-UX) what they are - versatile OSs that are configurable to the maximum extent. Windoze, on the other hand, has been developed according to wishes, not needs, of hobbie users that favour clicking icons and stuff like that. I like it too, but found that my data is indefinitely more important and want to use it in the future so Linux is my best bet. Some of us are tired of relying on ever-changing APIs that are being developed according to momental needs (=which rival do we want to wipe out today, Balmer?) The less organization you have the more development will serve real needs; developers that code in their spare time usually know what they're doing and what is needed, and are not directed by boss that puts generating revenue as priority no. 1. Do you think it will ever be possible that in a corporation the work will not be driven by revenue? That shareholders will back off and leave developers total control over their work? I think not. Did we learn something from MS-success story? MS kills competition by destroying its revenue. Its the scenario that was happening all along. Let the question whether this is fair or not, be put aside in this discussion. Fact is, Linux is on the rise in the situation where all non-MS systems are sinking precisely because of its independence of revenue. No corporation could ever develop such a high-quality OS starving of revenue and with that kind of rival-killing competition from a giant like MS. Linux development model (and therefore Debian as well) is immune against such attacks. As for two kinds of developers, paid and unpaid ones, don't you think there can arise some tensions between the groups? Money changes much things. Debian is the only viable non-commercial Linux distribution nowadays. It's the only major Linux distribution of which development is propelled by absolutely no
Re: Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
Quoting Greg Vence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Eric Gillespie, Jr. wrote: On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Christian Lavoie wrote: I starting to think this whole mess started on a word understanding problem. I wouldn't name such an organization a 'corporation', =P Written by someone in a Europeanish timezone ^ Since corporation is the legal term for the type of entity I am describing, I don't see what's wrong with calling it a democratic corporation. Written by someone in a North Americanish timezone ^^^ The problem is this is neither. Debian isn't a Democracy, its a Republic. :) Otherwise, all you'd need is enough ignorant people voting for a stupid idea and the project would be ruined. In a _real_ Republic, you put the smart people to work making a minimal set of rules that we all follow. Corporations are owned by shareholders. It is a democracy. How do you trade shares, money? Who gets how many? What happens when BillyG owns 50.1%, or pick your favorite aspiring businessman? I thought Companies were owned by their shareholders. But I'm British. I hope Debian is international. So it might be worth using carefully some clearer terminology to discuss these issues? Cheers, -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151 Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
Re: Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Christian Lavoie wrote: I starting to think this whole mess started on a word understanding problem. I wouldn't name such an organization a 'corporation', =P Written by someone in a Europeanish timezone ^ Looks like my timezone is screwed up, 'cause I'm Canadian. Since corporation is the legal term for the type of entity I am describing, I don't see what's wrong with calling it a democratic corporation. Written by someone in a North Americanish timezone ^^^ I thought Companies were owned by their shareholders. But I'm British. So do I. I hope Debian is international. So it might be worth using carefully some clearer terminology to discuss these issues? Debian IS international, AFAIC, and because of that, we are facing terminology problems, even in English 'versions' close as Canadian/American. Let's just take on our own to make sure the main topic of a message is clearly outlined by more than s ingle term. Esperanto anyone? Christian Lavoie
Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Jernej Zajc wrote: Being a Caldera newbie I find Debian idea so interesting that I'll probably switch. Point is, there is absolutely no commercial interests driving the development into one direction or the other. Developers have total control over what and how is going to be implemented. It's what's made Linux (and other high-end UNIX systems, such as Solaris, HP-UX) what they are - versatile OSs that are configurable to the maximum extent. Windoze, on the other hand, has been developed according to wishes, not needs, of hobbie users that favour clicking icons and stuff like that. I like it too, but found that my data is indefinitely more important and want to use it in the future so Linux is my best bet. Some of us are tired of relying on ever-changing APIs that are being developed according to momental needs (=which rival do we want to wipe out today, Balmer?) The less organization you have the more development will serve real needs; developers that code in their spare time usually know what they're doing and what is needed, and are not directed by boss that puts generating revenue as priority no. 1. Do you think it will ever be possible that in a corporation the work will not be driven by revenue? That shareholders will back off and leave developers total control over their work? I think not. Then you must not be paying attention. As I have said in nearly every message, this would not be a public corporation. The only shareholders would be the same people who control Debian today. The only change is that they will be paid and therefore will not need other jobs. As for two kinds of developers, paid and unpaid ones, don't you think there can arise some tensions between the groups? Money changes much things. Only if we let it. We're not animals. We're human. We can control ourselves. Just because it rarely happens doesn't mean it can't happen. Debian is the only viable non-commercial Linux distribution nowadays. It's the only major Linux distribution of which development is propelled by absolutely no commercial interest. Many many people want it to stay this way. After all, it's the Linux way. Jernej None of this would change. As for your comment about the Linux way, I don't buy it. Over the course of the last year Linux has become *heavily* commercialized. I am dead against that. What I propose is the exact opposite, securing the developers and users as the sole controlling force behind Debian. /--\ | pretzelgod | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | (Eric Gillespie, Jr.) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |---*| | That's the problem with going from a soldier to a | | politician: you actually have to sit down and listen to | | people who six months ago you would've just shot. | | --President John Sheridan, Babylon 5| \--/
Re: Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
In America, publicly held companies are owned by their share holders but private companies are owned by their owners. ;^) Jack To: Greg Vence [EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric Gillespie, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org, David Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Jack A Walker/BII) Subject: Re: Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)] I thought Companies were owned by their shareholders. But I'm British. I hope Debian is international. So it might be worth using carefully some clearer terminology to discuss these issues? Cheers, -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151 Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
Re: Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
Debian IS international, AFAIC, and because of that, we are facing terminology problems, even in English 'versions' close as Canadian/American. Let's just take on our own to make sure the main topic of a message is clearly outlined by more than s ingle term. Esperanto anyone? Certe! Sed, kiom da debianistoj parolas la lingvon? Mi konas sole tiujn, kiuj estas anoj de la listo debian-esperanto@lists.debian.org. Tamen, mi pensas ke la supera mesagxo eble estis sxerce :) Por la programaro libera, ed.
Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
I hope no one gets angry at me for reviving this thread, but I'm just now reading it and I think this could be an important issue. Christian Lavoie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: My point is that this company would one day tries ot improve it's revenues and influence the Debian distribution to fits its needs. Look at the recent discussions about whether to ship Slink as i386 only, or to wait until m68k and others are ready. If Debian had been commercially distributed by a company, the choice wouldn't be taken on a 'How can this help the Debian dists and end-users' basis, but on a 'How can we get the most bucks' basis. You're thinking in traditional terms. Someone decides these issues now, right? Those exact same people would be in charge of this corporation. They would not be interested in the bottom line, but in what's best for Debian. The word corporation scares a lot of people because of what it's come to represent. But how a corporation is run is decided internally. Just because there aren't any democratic corporations doesn't mean we can't start one. This new democratic Debian corporation could sell shrink-wrapped Debian CDs right next to Red Hat CDs, hopefully cheaper. Combined with Debian's advantages over Red Hat and word-of-mouth, Debian could possibly eclipse Red Hat. Even if it doesn't become the best-selling distro, it could still sell enough to give the developer's jobs. I'm not sure if this would be considered a for-profit corporation or not. No one's really raking in any profit, most of the money is going back into Debian and paying for the packaging and such, but some people are getting paid, so I'm not sure. I can see only two changes in Debian due to this corporation. Development would (presumably) go faster because the developers are getting paid, and Debian would become more well-known. I also liked the idea that someone suggested earlier, that people could pay dues into this corporation and get a vote. A democratic corporation indeed. This may sound radical, but we'll never know if it will work unless we try, will we? /--\ | pretzelgod | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | (Eric Gillespie, Jr.) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |---*| | That's the problem with going from a soldier to a | | politician: you actually have to sit down and listen to | | people who six months ago you would've just shot. | | --President John Sheridan, Babylon 5| \--/
Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
My point is that this company would one day tries ot improve it's revenues and influence the Debian distribution to fits its needs. Look at the recent discussions about whether to ship Slink as i386 only, or to wait until m68k and others are ready. If Debian had been commercially distributed by a company, the choice wouldn't be taken on a 'How can this help the Debian dists and end-users' basis, but on a 'How can we get the most bucks' basis. You're thinking in traditional terms. Someone decides these issues now, right? Those exact same people would be in charge of this corporation. They would not be interested in the bottom line, but in what's best for Debian. The word corporation scares a lot of people because of what it's come to represent. But how a corporation is run is decided internally. Just because there aren't any democratic corporations doesn't mean we can't start one. I starting to think this whole mess started on a word understanding problem. I wouldn't name such an organization a 'corporation', =P This new democratic Debian corporation could sell shrink-wrapped Debian CDs right next to Red Hat CDs, hopefully cheaper. Combined with Debian's advantages over Red Hat and word-of-mouth, Debian could possibly eclipse Red Hat. Even if it doesn't become the best-selling distro, it could still sell enough to give the developer's jobs. I'm not sure if this would be considered a for-profit corporation or not. No one's really raking in any profit, most of the money is going back into Debian and paying for the packaging and such, but some people are getting paid, so I'm not sure. I can see only two changes in Debian due to this corporation. Development would (presumably) go faster because the developers are getting paid, and Debian would become more well-known. I also liked the idea that someone suggested earlier, that people could pay dues into this corporation and get a vote. A democratic corporation indeed. This may sound radical, but we'll never know if it will work unless we try, will we? Nope. But it does indeed sounds real good. How can we do so? /--\ | pretzelgod | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | (Eric Gillespie, Jr.) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |---*| | That's the problem with going from a soldier to a | | politician: you actually have to sit down and listen to | | people who six months ago you would've just shot. | | --President John Sheridan, Babylon 5| \--/ -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Christian Lavoie wrote: I starting to think this whole mess started on a word understanding problem. I wouldn't name such an organization a 'corporation', =P Since corporation is the legal term for the type of entity I am describing, I don't see what's wrong with calling it a democratic corporation. Nope. But it does indeed sounds real good. How can we do so? An interesting question. The first step is (obviously) to convince enough people. Especially the developers' we've been talking about. Surely they have opinions? /--\ | pretzelgod | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | (Eric Gillespie, Jr.) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |---*| | That's the problem with going from a soldier to a | | politician: you actually have to sit down and listen to | | people who six months ago you would've just shot. | | --President John Sheridan, Babylon 5| \--/
Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
Hi, An interesting question. The first step is (obviously) to convince enough people. Especially the developers' we've been talking about. Surely they have opinions? I'd be interested in such an entity. Count me in. -Ossama
Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
Eric Gillespie, Jr. wrote: On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Christian Lavoie wrote: I starting to think this whole mess started on a word understanding problem. I wouldn't name such an organization a 'corporation', =P Since corporation is the legal term for the type of entity I am describing, I don't see what's wrong with calling it a democratic corporation. The problem is this is neither. Debian isn't a Democracy, its a Republic. :) Otherwise, all you'd need is enough ignorant people voting for a stupid idea and the project would be ruined. In a _real_ Republic, you put the smart people to work making a minimal set of rules that we all follow. Corporations are owned by shareholders. It is a democracy. How do you trade shares, money? Who gets how many? What happens when BillyG owns 50.1%, or pick your favorite aspiring businessman? L8r -- Greg. -- What do you want to spend today? Debian GNU/Linux (Free for an UNLIMITED time) http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html Greg VenceKH2EA/4
Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
I can see only two changes in Debian due to this corporation. Development would (presumably) go faster because the developers are getting paid, and Debian would become more well-known. I also liked the idea that someone suggested earlier, that people could pay dues into this corporation and get a vote. A democratic corporation indeed. I was actually suggesting this for RedHat rather than Debian. I believe such a model would fit RedHat much better than Debian. The Debian model gives the votes and power to the developers and the role of developer is a voluntary position. This is right and proper --- the developers give their time and efforts for free, and because of this, expect to have complete control over what they do. If Debian moved to a democratic non-profit corporation model, the nature of Debian would change dramatically. The power would move from the developers to the users, and there would become two classes of developers: the paid and the unpaid. This environment would not be nearly so attractive to volunteer developers and would probably result in a deteriorating distribution. Certainly I don't believe existing developers would be keen to change models. RedHat on the other hand, already is much nearer to this model. They already have the separation between paid and unpaid package developers. And because the main developers are paid --- via income generated from users --- it is reasonable that users expect some say over how the organization is run. Of course this isn't how it works currently. Because RedHat is a for-profit company, it is answerable only to its shareholders. My suggestion to RedHat was that they move to a different not-for-profit model, with the power base shifted to users who pay a membership fee. It would be a big sacrifice on the part of the current owners of RedHat, but I believe it would be a wonderful gift to the linux community. Mark. _/\___/~~\ /~~\_/~~\__/~~\__Mark_Phillips /~~\_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] /~~\HE___/~~\__/~~\APTAIN_ /~~\__/~~\ __ They told me I was gullible ... and I believed them!
Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Mark Phillips wrote: I was actually suggesting this for RedHat rather than Debian. I believe such a model would fit RedHat much better than Debian. The Debian model gives the votes and power to the developers and the role of developer is a voluntary position. This is right and proper --- the developers give their time and efforts for free, and because of this, expect to have complete control over what they do. If Debian moved to a democratic non-profit corporation model, the nature of Debian would change dramatically. The power would move from the developers to the users, and there would become two classes of developers: the paid and the unpaid. This environment would not be nearly so attractive to volunteer developers and would probably result in a deteriorating distribution. Certainly I don't believe existing developers would be keen to change models. RedHat on the other hand, already is much nearer to this model. They already have the separation between paid and unpaid package developers. And because the main developers are paid --- via income generated from users --- it is reasonable that users expect some say over how the organization is run. Of course this isn't how it works currently. Because RedHat is a for-profit company, it is answerable only to its shareholders. My suggestion to RedHat was that they move to a different not-for-profit model, with the power base shifted to users who pay a membership fee. It would be a big sacrifice on the part of the current owners of RedHat, but I believe it would be a wonderful gift to the linux community. Mark. You're proposing this for Red Hat. That's fine, I'm proposing a similar model for Debian. Maybe the membership idea is a good idea, maybe it isn't. I can see some advantages, but I can also see some drawbacks. The key is to get these ideas out on the table. We'll never know until we try. As for what you said about two classes of developers, that doesn't make any sense. If developers are willing to work for free now, why wouldn't they be able to work for free if some of the core group are getting paid? I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it. /--\ | pretzelgod | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | (Eric Gillespie, Jr.) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |---*| | That's the problem with going from a soldier to a | | politician: you actually have to sit down and listen to | | people who six months ago you would've just shot. | | --President John Sheridan, Babylon 5| \--/
Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
I don't think Debian is usable to found a company on that. No company can actually control Debian, impose release dates and such needed things (for a company). Even if it's feasible, no company ever SHOULD have such rights, for Debian to keep it's spirit. You are thinking in the wrong traditional terms. It's not about controlling Debian or imposing anything upon anyone. A company based on Debian would need a different business strategy. Just take into account what a company like Cygnus is doing for free software! A company basing it's business on Debian Linux should ideally be composed of Debian people and would mainly care in making Debian known as a viable product on the wider market. Generated income could be used to give full time jobs to Debian developers who could then fully concentrate on Debian for a living. This could probably help increase the release frequency and would provide a financial framework for Debian. At the moment it's really a pity that mainly third parties are generating income mainly for themselves and i believe we would considerably benefit if a company would do the same specifically for Debian. Wouldn't you like to be paid working for Debian? My point is that this company would one day tries ot improve it's revenues and influence the Debian distribution to fits its needs. Look at the recent discussions about whether to ship Slink as i386 only, or to wait until m68k and others are ready. If Debian had been commercially distributed by a company, the choice wouldn't be taken on a 'How can this help the Debian dists and end-users' basis, but on a 'How can we get the most bucks' basis. So I think my argument still stands. We can't allow for someone to sell Debian itself, it shall at every cost stay uninfluenced by any other corporation. What we could do in this approach would be to found a non-profit organization (I think that's the place you and I are touchy) that would do sidejobs on Debian. As for what it could do, let's see this example list: - Education and testing of Debian consultants. Guys who would debug you're system for a fee. Kind of certification of proficiency program. - Debian books and other such things. Maintain a support site. - Centralized support, phone, e-mail, whatever. - Shrink-wrapped, Cds with other useful apps. (Like Caldera's partition magic pack, or pre-installed Office apps, etc.) It would be in the goals of such an organization to provide publicity and availability to the Debian dist, and to re-invest in that particular dist. Which would get us a great deal of what we still need: Money support.
